2019 WI 35 

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2018AP2460-D 

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against 

Gary E. Grass, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Gary E. Grass, 

 Respondent. 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST GRASS 

OPINION FILED: April 16, 2019 

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 

ORAL ARGUMENT: 

SOURCE OF APPEAL: 

 COURT: 

 COUNTY: 

 JUDGE: 

 

JUSTICES: 

 CONCURRED: 

 DISSENTED: 

 NOT PARTICIPATING: 

 

ATTORNEYS: 

 
2019 WI 35

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2018AP2460-D 

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT 

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Gary E. Grass, Attorney at Law: 

Office of Lawyer Regulation, 

 Complainant, 

 v. 

Gary E. Grass, 

 Respondent. 

FILED 

APR 16, 2019 

Sheila T. Reiff 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

suspended. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. We review a stipulation filed pursuant 

to Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 22.12 by the Office of Lawyer 

Regulation (OLR) and Attorney Gary E. Grass. In the 

stipulation, Attorney Grass admits that he committed 

professional misconduct, and he agrees with the OLR's request 

that his license to practice law in Wisconsin be suspended for a 

period of 60 days. 

¶2 After careful review of the matter, we accept the 

stipulation and impose the requested discipline. Because 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

2 

Attorney Grass entered into a comprehensive stipulation before 

the appointment of a referee, we do not require him to pay the 

costs of this proceeding. 

¶3 Attorney Grass was admitted to practice law in 

Wisconsin in 2003. He has no prior disciplinary history. 

Effective May 22, 2018, his Wisconsin law license was suspended 

for failure to comply with mandatory continuing legal education 

reporting requirements. Effective October 31, 2018, his license 

was suspended for failure to pay state bar dues and provide OLR 

trust account certification. On November 13, 2018, his law 

license was temporarily suspended by this court for failure to 

cooperate with three OLR investigations into his conduct. His 

law license remains suspended. 

¶4 On December 27, 2018, the OLR filed a complaint 

alleging that Attorney Grass had engaged in 14 counts of 

misconduct arising out of his representation of five clients. 

On February 15, 2019, the OLR and Attorney Grass filed their 

stipulation. We take the following facts from that stipulation. 

Client W.H. 

¶5 In or about November 2009, Attorney Grass was 

appointed by the public defender's office to appear as appellate 

counsel on behalf of W.H. in a criminal matter in Waukesha 

County. Attorney Grass filed an appeal on behalf of W.H. 

relating to modification of the original sentence and a reconfinement sentence as well as raising an ineffective 

assistance of counsel claim. 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

3 

¶6 In June 2012, the court of appeals issued an order 

finding that W.H. was entitled to a resentencing hearing and 

remanding the matter for a hearing on the ineffective assistance 

of counsel claim. The court of appeals held that the motion to 

modify the original sentence could not properly be decided in 

the context of that appeal. 

¶7 In September of 2016, W.H. retained Attorney Grass to 

represent him regarding a motion to modify the original 

sentence. Attorney Grass received a $1,000 fee from W.H., some 

of which was applied to work Attorney Grass had already 

performed and some of which was to be for future services. 

Attorney Grass did not place the $1,000 into his trust account. 

It is unclear how much of the fee was applied to work already 

performed and how much was paid in contemplation of future 

services. Attorney Grass did not have a written fee agreement 

with W.H. 

¶8 W.H. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 

Grass on June 23, 2017. On June 26, 2017, Attorney Grass filed 

a motion to modify the original sentence. The circuit court 

denied that motion in March 2018. 

¶9 In a letter dated January 29, 2018, an OLR 

investigator requested that Attorney Grass provide additional 

information relating to W.H.'s grievance. The OLR gave Attorney 

Grass several extensions of time to respond to the request for 

information but he never responded. The OLR filed a motion with 

this court seeking an order that Attorney Grass show cause why 

his Wisconsin law license should not be temporarily suspended 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

4 

for his failure to cooperate in this and two other OLR 

investigations. On November 13, 2018, this court issued an 

order temporarily suspending Attorney Grass' Wisconsin law 

license. 

¶10 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 

Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 

to his representation of W.H.: 

Count 1: By failing to place the portion of W.H.'s 

$1,000 constituting an advanced fee into his trust 

account, Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.5(f).1

Count 2: By willfully failing to respond to the OLR's 

request for additional information relating to W.H.'s 

grievance, Attorney Grass violated SCR 22.03(6),2

enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h).3

Client M.E. 

 

1 SCR 20:1.5(f) provides: 

Except as provided in SCR 20:1.5(g), unearned 

fees and funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for 

payment of fees shall be held in trust until earned by 

the lawyer, and withdrawn pursuant to SCR 20:1.5(h). 

Funds advanced by a client or 3rd party for payment of 

costs shall be held in trust until the costs are 

incurred. 

2 SCR 22.03(6) provides: "In the course of the 

investigation, the respondent's wilful failure to provide 

relevant information, to answer questions fully, or to furnish 

documents and the respondent's misrepresentation in a disclosure 

are misconduct, regardless of the merits of the matters asserted 

in the grievance." 

3 SCR 20:8.4(h) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to fail to cooperate in the investigation of a 

grievance filed with the office of lawyer regulation as required 

by SCR 21.15(4), SCR 22.001(9)(b), SCR 22.03(2), SCR 22.03(6), 

or SCR 22.04(1)." 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

5 

¶11 In April 2016, M.E. hired Attorney Grass as 

postconviction counsel in a criminal matter in Milwaukee County. 

Attorney Grass agreed to review M.E.'s criminal conviction and 

prepare a motion challenging it. Pursuant to the terms of the 

fee agreement, M.E. agreed to pay a $1,000 advanced fee. 

Attorney Grass agreed to provide M.E.'s mother, E.E., with 

monthly billing statements. 

¶12 Attorney Grass did not file any postconviction motions 

on behalf of M.E., nor did he provide E.E. with monthly billing 

statements. 

¶13 In November 2017, M.E. and E.E. both filed grievances 

with the OLR about Attorney Grass' handling of the 

postconviction matter. In April 2018, Attorney Grass told M.E. 

and E.E. that a motion would be fully completed in two or three 

weeks, but he failed to follow through. 

¶14 In a letter dated May 30, 2018, M.E. wrote to the OLR 

regarding the status of his case and Attorney Grass' law 

license. Attorney Grass had failed to notify M.E. of his 

suspension. 

¶15 In a letter dated February 2, 2018, the OLR forwarded 

the grievances of M.E. and E.E. to Attorney Grass and requested 

a response. In spite of being given several extensions of time 

to provide a response, Attorney Grass failed to do so. This 

court's November 13, 2018 order temporarily suspending Attorney 

Grass' law license was based in part on his failure to respond 

to the grievances filed by M.E. and E.E. 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

6 

¶16 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 

Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 

to his representation of M.E.: 

Count 3: By failing to file a postconviction motion 

on M.E.'s behalf prior to the May 22, 2018 

administrative suspension of his law license, Attorney 

Grass violated SCR 20:1.3.4

Count 4: By failing to notify M.E. of the May 22, 

2018 suspension of his law license and his consequent 

inability to practice law, Attorney Grass violated 

SCR 22.26(1),5 enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f).6

 

4 SCR 20:1.3 provides: "A lawyer shall act with reasonable 

diligence and promptness in representing a client." 

5 SCR 22.26(1) provides: 

(1) On or before the effective date of license 

suspension or revocation, an attorney whose license is 

suspended or revoked shall do all of the following: 

(a) Notify by certified mail all clients being 

represented in pending matters of the suspension or 

revocation and of the attorney's consequent inability 

to act as an attorney following the effective date of 

the suspension or revocation. 

(b) Advise the clients to seek legal advice of 

their choice elsewhere. 

(c) Promptly provide written notification to the 

court or administrative agency and the attorney for 

each party in a matter pending before a court or 

administrative agency of the suspension or revocation 

and of the attorney's consequent inability to act as 

an attorney following the effective date of the 

suspension or revocation. The notice shall identify 

the successor attorney of the attorney's client or, if 

there is none at the time notice is given, shall state 

the client's place of residence. 

(d) Within the first 15 days after the effective 

date of suspension or revocation, make all 

(continued) 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

7 

Count 5: By willfully failing to respond to the OLR's 

February 2, 2018 letter seeking a response to the 

grievances by M.E. and E.E., Attorney Grass violated 

SCR 22.03(2)7 and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via 

SCR 20:8.4(h). 

 

arrangements for the temporary or permanent closing or 

winding up of the attorney's practice. The attorney 

may assist in having others take over clients' work in 

progress. 

(e) Within 25 days after the effective date of 

suspension or revocation, file with the director an 

affidavit showing all of the following: 

(i) Full compliance with the provisions of the 

suspension or revocation order and with the rules and 

procedures regarding the closing of the attorney's 

practice. 

(ii) A list of all jurisdictions, including 

state, federal and administrative bodies, before which 

the attorney is admitted to practice. 

(iii) A list of clients in all pending matters 

and a list of all matters pending before any court or 

administrative agency, together with the case number 

of each matter. 

(f) Maintain records of the various steps taken 

under this rule in order that, in any subsequent 

proceeding instituted by or against the attorney, 

proof of compliance with the rule and with the 

suspension or revocation order is available. 

6 SCR 20:8.4(f) provides: "It is professional misconduct 

for a lawyer to violate a statute, supreme court rule, supreme 

court order or supreme court decision regulating the conduct of 

lawyers." 

7 SCR 22.03(2) provides: 

Upon commencing an investigation, the director 

shall notify the respondent of the matter being 

investigated unless in the opinion of the director the 

investigation of the matter requires otherwise. The 

(continued) 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

8 

Client D.P. 

¶17 On or around August 31, 2016, D.P., through his 

grandmother, hired Attorney Grass as postconviction counsel in a 

Milwaukee County criminal matter. D.P. wanted Attorney Grass to 

appeal his conviction or seek a reduction of his sentence or a 

new trial. 

¶18 On September 8, 2016, Attorney Grass appeared on 

D.P.'s behalf in the criminal matter in the court of appeals 

district I. On October 18, 2016, Attorney Grass filed a motion 

for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal or a 

postconviction motion. The court of appeals granted the motion 

and extended the deadline to November 17, 2016. 

¶19 Between October 18, 2016 and February 14, 2018, 

Attorney Grass filed 14 motions for an extension of time to file 

a notice of appeal or a postconviction motion. The court of 

appeals granted all of the requests but stated, "it appears that 

counsel has not made a meaningful assessment of his ability to 

complete the postconviction motion within the requested extended 

deadline. Multiple requests for extension which counsel is 

unable to meet are burdensome to the court." 

 

respondent shall fully and fairly disclose all facts 

and circumstances pertaining to the alleged misconduct 

within 20 days after being served by ordinary mail a 

request for a written response. The director may 

allow additional time to respond. Following receipt 

of the response, the director may conduct further 

investigation and may compel the respondent to answer 

questions, furnish documents, and present any 

information deemed relevant to the investigation. 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

9 

¶20 Attorney Grass failed to file a notice of appeal or a 

postconviction motion by the last extended deadline. He also 

failed to communicate with D.P. and failed to return phone calls 

from D.P.'s family. 

¶21 In May 2018, D.P. filed a pro se request for a hearing 

to discharge Attorney Grass as his counsel and appoint new 

appellate counsel. The court of appeals denied D.P.'s request 

and directed him to address his complaint against Attorney Grass 

to the OLR and/or to the State Public Defender's office. On 

June 11, 2018, the public defender's office notified D.P. that 

Attorney Grass' license had been suspended. 

¶22 D.P. filed a grievance with the OLR against Attorney 

Grass. Attorney Grass failed to file a response. 

¶23 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 

Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 

to his representation of D.P.: 

Count 6: By failing to advance D.P.'s interests in 

the matter of an appeal or postconviction motion, 

including failing to file a notice of appeal or 

postconviction motion in D.P.'s matter by the April 5, 

2018 deadline, Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.3. 

Count 7: By failing to communicate with D.P. or 

D.P.'s family from March 2017 until August 16, 2017 

regarding the status of his case, Attorney Grass 

violated SCR 20:1.4(a)(3).8

Count 8: By failing to notify D.P. of the May 22, 

2018 suspension of his law license and his consequent 

 

8 SCR 20:1.4(a)(3) provides: "A lawyer shall keep the 

client reasonably informed about the status of the matter." 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

10 

inability to practice law, Attorney Grass violated 

SCR 22.26(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 

Count 9: By willfully failing to timely respond to 

the OLR's July 26, 2018 letter seeking a response to 

D.P.'s grievance, Attorney Grass violated SCR 22.03(2) 

and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

Client V.C. 

¶24 On October 29, 2016, V.C. hired Attorney Grass as his 

appellate counsel in a criminal matter in Milwaukee County 

regarding his conviction and conditions of confinement. He also 

hired Attorney Grass to respond to potential harassment by 

V.C.'s alleged co-actor. Attorney Grass told the OLR he 

received $1,000 in fees from V.C. for four hours of work with no 

expenses. Attorney Grass also told the OLR he agreed to provide 

six hours of work without charge to V.C., but had performed over 

ten hours of work on the case. Attorney Grass told the OLR he 

was unable to locate his written fee agreement with V.C. 

¶25 On December 5, 2016, Attorney Grass filed a motion to 

request transcripts and the circuit court record. The court of 

appeals granted the motion and established a deadline of 

December 23, 2016 to obtain the transcripts and circuit court 

record. Attorney Grass filed a second motion to extend the time 

to request transcripts on December 27, 2016. The court of 

appeals granted the motion and extended the deadline to January 

6, 2017. 

¶26 On November 19, 2017, Attorney Grass wrote to the 

court of appeals saying that he had not ordered the transcripts 

and failed to realize that V.C. was indigent and was entitled to 

a waiver of the transcript fees. 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

11 

¶27 In the meantime, on August 23, 2017, V.C. had filed a 

grievance with the OLR against Attorney Grass. Attorney Grass 

failed to respond to the OLR's request for information about the 

grievance. 

¶28 On December 1, 2017, the court of appeals ordered that 

the deadline for requesting copies of the transcripts would be 

January 29, 2018 and directed Attorney Grass to file a status 

report no later than January 2, 2018. Attorney Grass failed to 

meet both deadlines. 

¶29 Attorney Grass failed to respond to the OLR's repeated 

requests for information about the grievance. This court's 

November 13, 2018 order temporarily suspending Attorney Grass' 

law license was based in part on his failure to respond to the 

OLR's investigation of V.C.'s grievance. 

¶30 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 

Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 

to his representation of V.C.: 

Count 10: By failing to obtain transcripts or seek a 

waiver of court reporter's fees or otherwise take 

steps to advance V.C.'s case in a timely manner, 

Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.3. 

Count 11: By willfully failing to respond to the 

OLR's request for additional information relating to 

V.C.'s grievance, Attorney Grass violated 

SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

Client S.B. 

¶31 On or about May 29, 2017, S.B. hired Attorney Grass as 

his appellate counsel in a criminal matter in Milwaukee County 

to evaluate the prospect of filing a postconviction motion. 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

12 

Attorney Grass' written fee agreement with S.B. stated that work 

would be performed according to the following pay schedule: 

$250 per hour for the first four hours, $0 for the following six 

hours, $100 per hour for the following ten hours, $50 per hour 

for the following forty hours, and $20 per hour for any further 

work until completion. Attorney Grass agreed to provide S.B. 

monthly billing statements itemizing the work performed on 

S.B.'s behalf. S.B. paid Attorney Grass approximately $1,500. 

¶32 On June 1, 2017, S.B.'s previous appellate counsel 

delivered S.B.'s appeal file to Attorney Grass and informed him 

that the date for filing a notice of appeal or postconviction 

motion was July 5, 2017. 

¶33 In a letter dated December 6, 2017, S.B. wrote to 

Attorney Grass identifying issues he believed relevant to his 

postconviction motion. Attorney Grass failed to respond to the 

letter. 

¶34 Attorney Grass requested, and was granted, three 

extensions of time for filing a notice of appeal or a 

postconviction motion on S.B.'s behalf. He never filed either a 

notice of appeal or a postconviction motion. 

¶35 In a letter dated May 9, 2018, S.B. requested that the 

public defender's office appoint new counsel for him. Attorney 

Grass failed to notify S.B. of the May 22, 2018 suspension of 

his law license. S.B. learned about Attorney Grass' suspension 

when he was copied on a letter from the public defender's office 

to Attorney Grass, dated May 30, 2018. 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

13 

¶36 On May 22, 2018, S.B. filed a grievance with the OLR 

against Attorney Grass. Attorney Grass failed to respond to the 

OLR's request for information about the grievance. 

¶37 On July 3, 2018, S.B.'s prior appellate counsel, who 

was still an attorney of record for S.B. in the Milwaukee case, 

requested an extension of time for S.B. to file a postconviction 

motion or a notice of appeal. The court granted that request. 

¶38 On July 6, 2018, Attorney Grass informed the court of 

appeals, district I that his law license had been suspended. In 

a letter dated August 8, 2018, Attorney Grass informed the OLR 

and the clerk of this court that he was unable to provide 

responses to the OLR's requests for information and that he was 

"in no present condition to practice." 

¶39 By virtue of entering into the stipulation, Attorney 

Grass admitted the following counts of misconduct with respect 

to his representation of S.B.: 

Count 12: By failing to advance S.B.'s interests in 

the matter of an appeal or postconviction motion, 

Attorney Grass violated SCR 20:1.3. 

Count 13: By failing to notify S.B. of the May 22, 

2018 suspension of his law license and his consequent 

inability to practice law, Attorney Grass violated 

SCR 22.26(1), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(f). 

Count 14: By willfully failing to timely respond to 

the OLR's June 25, 2018 letter seeking a response to 

S.B.'s grievance, Attorney Grass violated SCR 22.03(2) 

and SCR 22.03(6), enforceable via SCR 20:8.4(h). 

¶40 The parties' stipulation states that the terms of the 

stipulation were not bargained for or negotiated between the 

parties. Attorney Grass avers that he admits the facts of the 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

14 

misconduct alleged by the OLR and agrees to the level of 

discipline sought by the OLR, a 60-day suspension of his license 

to practice law in Wisconsin. Attorney Grass represents that he 

fully understands the misconduct allegations, fully understands 

the ramifications should the court impose the stipulated level 

of discipline, fully understands his right to contest the 

matter, fully understands his right to consult with and retain 

counsel, and states that his entry into the stipulation is made 

knowingly and voluntarily. 

¶41 The OLR filed a memorandum in support of the 

stipulation, citing a number of cases that it claims supports 

its request for a 60-day suspension: In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Bartz, 2015 WI 61, 362 Wis. 2d 752, 864 

N.W.2d 881 (60-day suspension for five counts of misconduct 

related to one client matter; attorney had one prior private 

reprimand); In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against Briggs, 2014 

WI 119, 358 Wis. 2d 493, 861 N.W.2d 528 (90-day suspension for 

12 counts of misconduct related to two client matters; attorney 

had no prior disciplinary history); In re Disciplinary 

Proceedings Against Kasprowicz, 2004 WI 151, 277 Wis. 2d 96, 690 

N.W.2d 13 (public reprimand for 16 counts of misconduct related 

to six client matters; referee found multiple mitigating 

factors, including medical and emotional problems found to have 

a causal connection with the misconduct at issue.) 

¶42 Although no two attorney disciplinary matters are 

precisely the same, we find that the misconduct at issue here is 

somewhat analogous to that at issue in Bartz. While Attorney 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

15 

Bartz had a prior private reprimand and Attorney Grass has no 

disciplinary history, Attorney Grass has admitted nine more 

counts of misconduct than was at issue in Bartz. After careful 

review, we accept the stipulation and impose the jointly 

requested sanction of a 60-day suspension of Attorney Grass' law 

license. Because Attorney Grass entered into a comprehensive 

stipulation, thus obviating the need for the appointment of a 

referee and a full disciplinary proceeding, we impose no costs 

in this matter. 

¶43 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Gary E. Grass to 

practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of 60 days, 

effective the date of this order. 

¶44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not 

already done so, Gary E. Grass shall comply with the provisions 

of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to 

practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 

¶45 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compliance with all 

conditions of this decision is required for reinstatement. See 

SCR 22.28(2). 

¶46 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative 

suspension of Gary E. Grass' license to practice law in 

Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues, for 

failure to file Office of Lawyer Regulation trust account 

certification, and for noncompliance with continuing legal 

education requirements, will remain in effect until each reason 

for the administrative suspension has been rectified pursuant to 

SCR 22.28(1). 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

16 

¶47 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the November 13, 2018 

temporary suspension of Gary E. Grass' license to practice law 

in Wisconsin, due to his willful failure to cooperate with the 

Office of Lawyer Regulation's investigation in this matter, is 

lifted. 

¶48 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no costs are imposed on 

Gary E. Grass. 
No. 2018AP2460-D 

1